PDA

View Full Version : Serenity (The Operative)



Sinewmire
2008-10-26, 03:13 PM
I'd been wondering. If Malcolm Reynolds is the textbook example of Chaotic Good, then what is The Operative, his opponent in the movie?

At first I thought "Lawful Evil". He operates within the Alliance, and he is a self admitted monster. However, due to his status - without Rank of name, and near limitless authority - is he really Lawful?

Can you enforce law without using it?

Is he really Evil, too? He does kill children, but his motives are sound, though his faith may be misplaced. Personally I think he is, but it's an interesting discussion.

I'd invite your opinions.

Discuss!

(I think this belongs here, rather than, say the Movies section, because it involves DnD mechanics. Feel free to move it, nice mr/s moderator/s)

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-26, 03:19 PM
He commits Evil deeds for Lawful ends. That's the inverse of your typical Lawful Evil character, but I think it fits just fine.

And incidentally, just to provoke more arguing, in my book Mal was Chaotic Neutral until the events of the movie. He had a good heart, but let self-interest rule him too much until he finally snapped at the destruction of Book's settlement.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:21 PM
not everyone likes idea of discussing alignment of any character, fictional or otherwise, saying its too restricting. I do though.

The Operative "Evil, but for a good cause" He admits to being "a monster" in the movie itself.

Champions of Ruin had several generic descriptions, from "I Am Not Evil" "There Is No Evil" "Driven To Evil" "Better To Reign In Hell Than Serve In Heaven"

For him, best might be "The Ends Justify The Means"

ocato
2008-10-26, 03:48 PM
I firmly believe that the Operative is LE. He's a lawful evil monk/rogue and a character I've really been wanting to make.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:50 PM
Complete Scoundrel places Mal Reynolds as CG. However, that might be the Serenity version.

EDIT: It also places Captain Jack Sparrow as CN, and Riddick as CE, for comparison.

Mr.Bookworm
2008-10-26, 03:56 PM
Mal is most certainly Chaotic Neutral.

He does try to do good, but remember that entire scene where he kicked a man off their craft to leave him to the tender mercies of the Reavers, rather than abandoning their loot?

The Operative is Neutral Evil, I'd say. He's willing to do anything to achieve his ends, be it Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 03:58 PM
yes- maybe complete scoundrel was a bit over-generous with some alignments. It does put Han as True Neutral though (probably as of when you meet him in first movie)

horngeek
2008-10-26, 04:23 PM
When Mal first appears in the TV show (Firefly) during a sequence of the Browncoat War, he is LG, as he is considerate of his men, goes out of his way to help them, and is working as a soldier.

For the rest of Firefly, he is CN, as he is a smuggler, and is really just trying to make his own way. However, he has leanings towards CG, as several times, we see him going out of his way to defend somone where many people would just walk away. The same applies at the start of Serenity.

By the end of Serenity, he is CG, as he has gone out of his way to do an act, not because it will benefit him, but because people need to know the truth. The chaotic part is the "I aim to misbehave".

Kurald Galain
2008-10-26, 04:27 PM
The straitjacket of alignment really doesn't fit with the moral ambiguities of Firefly.

Magnor Criol
2008-10-26, 04:35 PM
I dunno...I can see a strong argument for Lawful Neutral for the Operative.

He does evil things, yes, but he also recognized times when good things needed to be done - for instance, the climactic stand-down order at the end of the movie.

Then there's the guy he killed at the beginning of the movie; yes, he killed him, but he didn't really want to; he just needed to, as part of his duty. He had to execute his duty, which meant he had to execute that man. He did it in the most honorable, straightforward way he could.

Yes, he broke laws, but being Lawful isn't really about following all the laws, and being Chaotic isn't about breaking them. It's following a code of discipline, a personal standard, whatever you want to call it - it's an ordered, standard, predictable way of behaving. And he definitely did that. He's definitely Lawful.

He had a directive, and he carried it out, even when it made him do things he didn't entirely want to do or things he wouldn't have done 'normally'. He subsumed his entire being, personality, and will into his job as the Operative - he was damn near a robot, really.

I'd say he's a ruthless LN, somewhat close to the edge of LE.

Mal, meanwhile, I'd say is pretty much split between CN and CG. He looks out for his team almost as much as he just looks out for himself, and the things he does usually tie in to one of those two facets.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 04:39 PM
Evil done for altruistic reasons is still evil, if you take Exalted Deeds approach. If you consider altruism can raise a normally Evil deed to Neutral (which BoED definitely doesn't) only then would he be more Neutral than evil.

EDIT: BoED does prize altruism, to the extend that normally Good deeds done for purely selfish reasons are defined as Neutral, but, its "No amount of Good motives can make an Evil deed Neutral" approach, is pretty much the only way to avoid "Anything is OK done for The Greater Good" moral relativism.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-26, 04:42 PM
He does evil things, yes, but he also recognized times when good things needed to be done - for instance, the climactic stand-down order at the end of the movie.Yeah, but only because he'd had the crap beaten out of him by the hero and then shown the error of his ways. The entire movie up to that point he had been firmly for eradicating River and anyone associated with her.

Realizing that his evil deeds had accomplished no good was the beginning of his path to LGness. Maybe.

hamishspence
2008-10-26, 04:49 PM
yes, seems possibly more ruthless than Dredd, who is famously LN at best.

chiasaur11
2008-10-26, 06:03 PM
I'd put Mal under good most of the time.

I mean, he's barely able to keep enough money in the coffers for food and fuel most of the time, yet he runs free jobs for the needy.

Don't get me wrong, he'd like to be CN, but his conscience won't let him pull it for long.

ocato
2008-10-26, 06:10 PM
At the end of Serenty, the operative loses his faith in the law and the perfect world that would be created with it. His ruthlessness and devotion go out the window and you're left with a sort of shell of a man. I'd say that after the experience, he's True Neutral. Now, if there is something else to be added concerning his future actions (canon sources) then I would be willing to say he went LG or in another direction. As it stood at the end of the movie, he had and was nothing.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-26, 08:51 PM
Mal as of the war-NG. He was doing everything he could to help his men, but he doesn't seem particularly Lawful or Chaotic.

Mal as of Firefly-CN with CG leanings. He looks out for him and his, everyone else can go to hell, and he takes more offense for insults to his people than insults to him, but don't forget the result of the train job.

Mal as of Serenity-decidedly CN, he's good when he can afford to be, but he'd rather dump an innocent than the haul needed to keep his ship flying. I say he stayed CN throughout, too. He went after Miranda due to anger over Book's death, and while he took huge risks getting the data out, I view that as not indicative of real shift, just a return of the CG leanings throughout the show. He does the right thing when he can afford to or when the need is overwhelming, but looks out for his crew and himself otherwise.

The Operative-LN. He wants nothing more than a perfect world, and he'll do whatever he has to to do it. He commits Evil acts for noble reasons, and does so with a personal code and a true sorrow over the acts. He's TN by the end, remember his "empty shell" comments. And yes, definitely a Monk.

The_Snark
2008-10-26, 09:30 PM
I'm not sure why so many people are advocating a neutral alignment for the Operative. Just because he has an altruistic goal in mind and regrets the need for killing innocents doesn't make the fact that he planned to kill that many people in cold blood less of an evil act.

The thing (that we see) which really pushes him over the line was his plan to flush out Mal by ordering the extermination of everybody known to associate with them. Sure, a lot of those people were probably criminals, and some of them might have even merited death sentences by Alliance law, but others might have only been guilty of harboring fugitives. It really didn't matter to him what they'd done; all that mattered was that he could use their deaths to get closer to his objective. It is a thoroughly evil act, and while he regrets the need for it, he would still do it again if necessary, and the way he regards himself makes you think that this is more or less standard operating procedure for him.

He is, essentially, already at the bottom of the slippery slope that is the End Justifies the Means philosophy: he's willing to accept absolutely anything that furthers his goal of a perfect world.

Ascension
2008-10-26, 09:32 PM
I support Mal as CN with a slight good inclination and The Operative as LN with a slight evil inclination.

I still say alignment is largely useless when dealing with antiheroes, though.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-26, 09:36 PM
He is, essentially, already at the bottom of the slippery slope that is the End Justifies the Means philosophy: he's willing to accept absolutely anything that furthers his goal of a perfect world.But his goals are LG, even if his means are LE. That says neutral to me. Of course, I firmly believe the ends justify the means, and that if you're not willing to consider what the final results of your acts will be, you're not making the right decisions.

Leewei
2008-10-26, 09:38 PM
Mal is a great exemplar of CG. If his ship doesn't fly, he and his crew are as good as dead. He's as kind to most folks that circumstances allow him to be. The exception is authority figures. At the end of The Train Job, he returned the medicine and put himself at risk of capture to save the town. He may occasionally do some questionable or even downright nasty things, but he's largely doing them under extreme circumstances due to his fairly extreme career choice.

The Operative was categorically Lawful Evil. He referred to himself as a monster, clearly killed or worse for a living, and had little remorse for his actions as they were done in the name of the greater good. He served the system, and while he certainly violated many laws in doing so, he had a rigorous code of behavior. He also held himself accountable to those he served. Ultimately, if he did commit unlawful acts of mayhem, it was due to overriding duty. Very Lawful; very Evil.

Weezer
2008-10-26, 09:41 PM
I think that the Operative is LN but straying dangerously close to LE. What I think is keeping him from LE is that when he learned of the extent of the Alliances involvement with the Reavers he allows Mal to escape and becomes disillusioned with the alliances ability to create "a world without sin"

Cathaidan
2008-10-26, 09:56 PM
At the end of Serenty, the operative loses his faith in the law and the perfect world that would be created with it. His ruthlessness and devotion go out the window and you're left with a sort of shell of a man. I'd say that after the experience, he's True Neutral. Now, if there is something else to be added concerning his future actions (canon sources) then I would be willing to say he went LG or in another direction. As it stood at the end of the movie, he had and was nothing.

See, I always viewed this scene from a different angle. What if the operative wasn't ordered to destroy River? I mean, that's what the Blue Hand guys are all about. I always thought that the operative knew the entire time about the Reavers and his orders were to stop River from letting anyone know the truth. When only the crew of Serenity could know the truth, then they all have to die but once the signal was sent out to everyone, there's nothing the Operative could do at that point. Killing the crew of Serenity no longer furthered his ideal of a perfect world, so he let them go.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-26, 10:05 PM
But his goals are LG, even if his means are LE. That says neutral to me. Of course, I firmly believe the ends justify the means, and that if you're not willing to consider what the final results of your acts will be, you're not making the right decisions.You can be Lawful Evil with Lawful Good intentions. You don't get alignment by averaging your actions and your intent.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-10-26, 10:09 PM
You can be Lawful Evil with Lawful Good intentions. You don't get alignment by averaging your actions and your intent.But actions cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. What he intended to happen because of his actions is just as important. He was attempting to create a perfect world that would make everyone's lives better. Yes, his acts were evil, but he was attempting to help everyone at the expense of a few. Not necessarily Palpentine here.

MeklorIlavator
2008-10-26, 10:17 PM
See, I always viewed this scene from a different angle. What if the operative wasn't ordered to destroy River? I mean, that's what the Blue Hand guys are all about. I always thought that the operative knew the entire time about the Reavers and his orders were to stop River from letting anyone know the truth. When only the crew of Serenity could know the truth, then they all have to die but once the signal was sent out to everyone, there's nothing the Operative could do at that point. Killing the crew of Serenity no longer furthered his ideal of a perfect world, so he let them go.

Then why does he refer to himself as a broken man afterwards? If he knew about it beforehand then there would be no reason for him to change. Also, I believe that in one of the comics, he is ordered to take up the task after the Blue hand men fail.

Gray Jester
2008-10-26, 10:31 PM
But actions cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. What he intended to happen because of his actions is just as important. He was attempting to create a perfect world that would make everyone's lives better. Yes, his acts were evil, but he was attempting to help everyone at the expense of a few. Not necessarily Palpentine here.

True, but on the other hand, I would agree with the people who say he is LE. Just because his intentions are good does not make his actions any better, and he is willing to order entire villages of innocents (Shep. Book's place) wiped out simply to further his goals. That's definitely evil, I see nothing neutral about it, even if he has the best intentions in the world.

Mewtarthio
2008-10-26, 10:38 PM
See, I always viewed this scene from a different angle. What if the operative wasn't ordered to destroy River? I mean, that's what the Blue Hand guys are all about. I always thought that the operative knew the entire time about the Reavers and his orders were to stop River from letting anyone know the truth. When only the crew of Serenity could know the truth, then they all have to die but once the signal was sent out to everyone, there's nothing the Operative could do at that point. Killing the crew of Serenity no longer furthered his ideal of a perfect world, so he let them go.

I disagree. Look at his face when he watches the transmission. That's not the face of a man thinking, "Oh, crap, looks like I lose." He's clearly horrified by what he sees.


But actions cannot be evaluated in a vacuum. What he intended to happen because of his actions is just as important. He was attempting to create a perfect world that would make everyone's lives better. Yes, his acts were evil, but he was attempting to help everyone at the expense of a few. Not necessarily Palpentine here.

Actions alone cannot be evaluated in a vaccuum, true, and some morally questionable acts may get a reprieve if your intentions are pure, but The Operative goes too far. The man slaughters civilians simply to draw out his target. He intentionally promotes an atmosphere of terror because he thinks it'll work out in the long run. Sure, he may not be as evil as Palpatine, but Palpatine's pretty far down the Evil spectrum. Where do you draw the line?

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-26, 10:41 PM
The majority of the people the Operative killed are, at best, shady semi-legal cyndacites, and more commonly, outright outlaws themselves. Hell, just doing business with Mal means skirting the unpleasant side of the law. So the Operative ordered executions of criminals, how is this an evil act?

He is the quintessential example of Lawful Neutral. Good and evil do not concern him. Following his orders does. He has the strength of conviction to do what is necessary to stop something which could completely destroy the governing body of the entire known galaxy. Hell, he skirted evil a whole lot less than many Paladins in games where they were trying to 'save the world'.

His task was not a simple one, but the orders were straightforward: Capture or kill River Tam, the fate of the galaxy rests on your sucessful completion of this mission.

chiasaur11
2008-10-26, 10:44 PM
The majority of the people the Operative killed are, at best, shady semi-legal cyndacites, and more commonly, outright outlaws themselves. Hell, just doing business with Mal means skirting the unpleasant side of the law. So the Operative ordered executions of criminals, how is this an evil act?

He is the quintessential example of Lawful Neutral. Good and evil do not concern him. Following his orders does. He has the strength of conviction to do what is necessary to stop something which could completely destroy the governing body of the entire known galaxy. Hell, he skirted evil a whole lot less than many Paladins in games where they were trying to 'save the world'.

His task was not a simple one, but the orders were straightforward: Capture or kill River Tam, the fate of the galaxy rests on your sucessful completion of this mission.

He murdered a monastery planet, complete with innocent children.

If that isn't evil...

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-26, 10:47 PM
He murdered a monastery planet, complete with innocent children.

If that isn't evil...

They were harboring known fugatives. They had been given information which let them KNOW the Law was out after them, and still they harbored and sheltered them. At the very least, this makes them accomplises, and outlaw themselves.

It is a shame that the mostly evil army got a bit too... entheusastic... about following orders... really they should have let the children survive and placed them in orphanages after killing all the criminally culpable individuals engaged in an act of Treason... but they do tend to get carried away sometimes, and it's not like we could have told them WHY they were sent out, now could we?

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-26, 10:49 PM
They were harboring known fugatives. They had been given information which let them KNOW the Law was out after them, and still they harbored and sheltered them. At the very least, this makes them accomplises, and outlaw themselves.

It is a shame that the mostly evil army got a bit too... entheusastic... about following orders... really they should have let the children survive and placed them in orphanages after killing all the criminally culpable individuals engaged in an act of Treason... but they do tend to get carried away sometimes, and it's not like we could have told them WHY they were sent out, now could we?This is the most blatant case of apologism and two-faced justification I've heard in quite a while.

Killing innocent children is Evil. Can we at least use that much as a premise?

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-26, 11:06 PM
This is the most blatant case of apologism and two-faced justification I've heard in quite a while.

Killing innocent children is Evil. Can we at least use that much as a premise?

I rather doubt the Operative specifically told them to kill the children, I rather foresee a report like this:

Collateral Damage, Sir. Unfortunately the insurgants were using heavy weapons (which, incidentally, shot us OUT OF THE AIR), and we had to use area effect fire suppression, which sadly caught all minors as well as the insurgents we were trying to suppress.

Piedmon_Sama
2008-10-26, 11:11 PM
They were harboring known fugatives. They had been given information which let them KNOW the Law was out after them, and still they harbored and sheltered them. At the very least, this makes them accomplises, and outlaw themselves.

It is a shame that the mostly evil army got a bit too... entheusastic... about following orders... really they should have let the children survive and placed them in orphanages after killing all the criminally culpable individuals engaged in an act of Treason... but they do tend to get carried away sometimes, and it's not like we could have told them WHY they were sent out, now could we?

I agree. The fact is, the Unification War was only a few years ago. The Alliance is still in the very early phases of reconstruction and unification, and its grip on the outer worlds remains tenuous. If they didn't take extreme measures--if they tied one hand behind their back--it's not unlikely the Alliance control on the outer rim would become even more of a joke than it is. Any law and order is preferrable to anarchy, although anarchy is more the reality on the fringe as it stands. The destruction of Booke's monastery was a tragedy, of course, but even though the Independants have been defeated the Alliance still stands to lose everything. And think of the thousands more who would die after that.

Obviously, the Operative is no white knight. He knows he can't afford to be. He knows what's at stake. I say Lawful Neutral.

Rei_Jin
2008-10-26, 11:15 PM
I believe that you're trying to use descriptions that come from a game where alignments are a tangible, defined thing, onto something where good and evil are not concrete, or tangible in the slightest.

In Serenity, good and evil are subjective. Not objective, which is how they are in Dungeons and Dragons.

So, for the Operative, it depends on the viewpoint that you come from.



If you view him from the perspective of Mal, then he's Lawful Evil, a tool of the oppresive regime.

If you view him from the perspective of the government, then he's Lawful Neutral. He does the job that he is given, without concern for right and wrong.

In either case, he is Lawful. He acts under order, and does everything he can to complete that order. He is above and beyond the everyday laws because of the power given to him, but that does not make him chaotic. If anything, it makes him more Lawful because he does not abuse that power for personal gain and is utterly devoted to the government.

Mind you, he himself sees what he does as evil, noting that there is no place for him in the "new world".

Tangible, concrete definitions cannot be accurately placed into a world where the same definitions are not tangible or concrete.

elliott20
2008-10-26, 11:20 PM
again,this is why I stopped bothering with the alignment system.

MeklorIlavator
2008-10-26, 11:35 PM
And if you take if from his point, he's Lawful Evil. Hell, he admits to "being a monster". In fact, considering that he's a black operative, and as such the goverment largely disavows his actions, I'd say they view his actions as evil too. Simply a necessary evil.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-10-26, 11:44 PM
again,this is why I stopped bothering with the alignment system.I did too. It's just that the Operative is one of the more intriguing cases to me of "definitely X alignment, but in an atypical way." Lawful Evil for the Greater Good.

It bears repeating that the Operative himself fully admits he is evil, a monster, full stop. He knows that, for the world to become the better place he wants it to be, he himself would have to die. I really don't think anyone in the 'Verse would argue that he's not a terrible human being. Noble, yes, but a horrible monster in the pursuit of a noble goal.

The_Snark
2008-10-27, 04:19 AM
I rather doubt the Operative specifically told them to kill the children, I rather foresee a report like this:

Collateral Damage, Sir. Unfortunately the insurgants were using heavy weapons (which, incidentally, shot us OUT OF THE AIR), and we had to use area effect fire suppression, which sadly caught all minors as well as the insurgents we were trying to suppress.

Ahah, yes. Children who will remember the Alliance's murder of their parents and destruction of their home. The Operative was a thorough man, not the kind to leave loose ends like that. I doubt he specifically said to kill all the children; I imagine it was more along the lines of "leave no survivors and no place to take shelter."

As for the argument that the people they were killing were probably outlaws and certainly known or suspected to have harbored fugitives, I addressed that a little pre-emptively, but to recap: it didn't matter to the Operative that these people were criminals. That wasn't why he killed them, and even he doesn't try to use it as a justification. (Alliance propaganda people might, if the incident ever came to light.) He kills them because it furthers his mission. Wouldn't have mattered if every last one was innocent.

The point the two people above me make is interesting- you're trying to defend him, whereas he (who knows more about his deeds than we do) does not. He believes himself to be evil: a necessary evil, but that doesn't give him any illusions about not being evil.

I don't think it's right to say that the end justifies the means; I don't think that its' right to say that the end never justifies the means either. I don't think there are very many absolutes that can be applied to morality discussions in general, but if there are, then "calculated mass murder to further your own ends is bad" is probably one of them.

Fishy
2008-10-27, 04:38 AM
Wow, you guys. If the Operative isn't Evil, who is?

"I stabbed that man in the gut and took his wallet, but it wasn't because I wanted to kill him, it was because I needed the money. I live in a world that operates under a strict capitalist system, which has rules I am forced to follow, you know. And in following these rules, I didn't care if some guy lived or died. Totally Lawful Neutral."

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-27, 09:19 AM
Wow, you guys. If the Operative isn't Evil, who is?

"I stabbed that man in the gut and took his wallet, but it wasn't because I wanted to kill him, it was because I needed the money. I live in a world that operates under a strict capitalist system, which has rules I am forced to follow, you know. And in following these rules, I didn't care if some guy lived or died. Totally Lawful Neutral."

Irrelevant example. It should be closer to "I stabbed that man in the gut and took his wallet because I was being ordered to do so and if I failed in this I would be shot and/or dissapeared"

Why do I say Neutral rather than Evil? A few reasons:

1) He doesn't enjoy evil acts. Take, for example, Belkar. He would have not only slaughtered the children, he would have reveled in it. The Operative clearly did not enjoy it. The very fact that he THINKS he is evil is the greatest telling point that he is still neutral. An evil character wouldn't be worried about it, and would have a lot more rationalization about it. He would have said "No, I am not evil, I am working for the greater good", rather than saying "I am a Monster."

2) He is True Lawful. Good or Evil does not sway him. Just like an Inevitable, he does not care if his target is the most despicable and vile being or the most saintly... that person broke the rules, and must be brought to justice. Details are irrelevant, reasons are irrelevant. This is pure Law, untainted by concepts of morality or depravity.

Sinewmire
2008-10-27, 11:16 AM
In Serenity, good and evil are subjective. Not objective, which is how they are in Dungeons and Dragons.


We know that :smallwink:
This is simply an intellectual excercise to stimulate thought and discuss topics I/we enjoy. I'm pleased to see that it's generating just that!

Mal is CG in my book. He may diverge from it at points, but he always strikes me as a good man trying to pretend he is a bad man. As for the whole pushing-guy-off-hover thing, nobody is perfect.

I digress. Is someone, like the Operative who operates 'legally' but has to obey no laws still Lawful? It seems if the only Law you must obey is "Fulfil your mission" then that's not terribly stringent application of your alignment.

I'm not counting his loss of faith at the end of the movie as indicative of anything other than that - he just watched the utter refutation of everything he ever fought for and believed in. I'd say he underwent a dramatic perspective shift.

Throughout the film he struck me as Chaotic Evil, personally speaking. Whilst yes, he operates at the behest of the Parliament he still doesn't really have to obey any laws or conventions. He murders dozens of people to deprive Malcolm of a hiding ground.


It is a shame that the mostly evil army got a bit too... entheusastic... about following orders... really they should have let the children survive and placed them in orphanages after killing all the criminally culpable individuals engaged in an act of Treason... but they do tend to get carried away sometimes, and it's not like we could have told them WHY they were sent out, now could we?

That smacks too much of self-delusion to me. The Operative knows exactly what is doing, and hasn't displayed an overabundance of pity. Nor is he the sort of person to be in any way unclear about what he expects. Woul you like to answer to him for our "over enthusiasm"?

I imagine his exact orders were "Kill everyone who has associated with the Tams, or the crew of Serenity." Even a child could have been told the secrets of Miranda. Remember - this is a man who knows he is a monster.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-27, 11:23 AM
Many people here are forgetting that the Operative is not a human automaton who gets orders and fulfills them, no matter what they are, and nothing more. A lot of what he is doing is his own initiative - for example, he wasn't ordered to destroy a colony full of innocents, he decided to do so on his own. He's a prime example of LE to the boot. At the end of Serenity he might have changed, but we haven't seen enough of him to see to what extent.

Mal is so borderline CG/CN that he's CG on a good day and CN on a bad day. If I had to give him a single alignment, however, it would be CG - apart from the incident at the start of Serenity (and he told that guy to go back to the shelter, several times) he never really did anything evil (although a crapload of chaotic stuff), while he performed a lot of good deeds.

Fishy
2008-10-27, 11:23 AM
Shneekey, I don't think we watched the same movie. :/


Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.


In his own mind, he's working for the greater good. That's how he's able to live with the things he does. Which is why, at the climax of the movie when he discovers he's on the wrong side, it -destroys- him. He's committed horrendously evil acts, and he knows this, but he believes he's Lawful Good, right up until the very end.

Philistine
2008-10-27, 12:02 PM
((snippage))

He is True Lawful. Good or Evil does not sway him. Just like an Inevitable, he does not care if his target is the most despicable and vile being or the most saintly... that person broke the rules, and must be brought to justice. Details are irrelevant, reasons are irrelevant. This is pure Law, untainted by concepts of morality or depravity.

A question: what "rule" or law did River Tam break, exactly? She was lured to an experimental lab under false pretenses, where she was held incommunicado while agents of the government subjected her to physical and psychological torture as part of an off-the-books program to try and create a super-Operative. So her crime is... not volunteering to go back into that after her brother finally managed to break her out? Or is her crime that she might have had access to information which would embarass the regime if it became public knowledge, purely as a result of someone else's error?

I don't think so. The Operative doesn't care about Law. He doesn't really care if other people break the law; certainly he's more than willing to ignore it himself when it gets in the way of following his orders. Because that's what he really cares about: Following Orders. He's far more Loyal than Lawful.

I'm not saying that The Operative isn't Lawful as "defined" in D&D (though I definitely recognize the argument for NE - after all, even Chaotic types can be loyal). It's Shneekey's specific characterization of him as an Agent of Law that I disagree with.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-27, 01:18 PM
Shneekey, I don't think we watched the same movie. :/



In his own mind, he's working for the greater good. That's how he's able to live with the things he does. Which is why, at the climax of the movie when he discovers he's on the wrong side, it -destroys- him. He's committed horrendously evil acts, and he knows this, but he believes he's Lawful Good, right up until the very end.

No, he doesn't believe he is LG. You just quoted him saying he's a monster, he clearly does not believe he is LG. In fact, he probably believes he is LE.

I think it is more of a difference of opinion on what 'evil' is defined as. However, having looked up the definition of 'evil' as it is represented in the d20SRD...


"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

By this definition, then yes, the Operative is clearly LE, having no compassion for others who stand between him and making a perfect 'verse.

And to those who claim he is Chaotic Evil, may I quote the iconic Lawful Neutral and Evil descriptions:


Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

This is really where I saw him being. It describes the Operative to a T.


Lawful Evil, "Dominator"
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

You see, this really doesn't fit him. He doesn't take pleasure in doing this. He doesn't want to rule or take anything over. He wants to maintain the status quo, using whatever tactics necessary to do so. Devils are the epitome of LE, but I just don't see this guy in that light. He judges people based on their actions. He doesn't care where they are from, only how they may impact his mission.

I think he's closer to LN than LE, but that may just be me.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 02:27 PM
I prefer to think of it as his actions being main reason he is evil, because his motivation is altruistic- good, but his actions are so evil, he can't be anything but evil.

Tome of magic has a Witch Hunter who is pretty like that, LE, kills binder, does it because sees them as threat to existance. Lost his paladinhood, but is not entirely aware of it- is not sure why his Deity (St Cuthbert) is no longer granting him his powers.

Well Intentioned Extremists can be evil, yet not aware of it- doing evil deeds for what they see as a Good Cause.

Doomsy
2008-10-27, 03:42 PM
D&D is the worst alignment system for pigeonholing complex characters.


The Operatives demeanor is True Neutral. He will do anything to accomplish his goals from publicizing the cure for cancer to drowning a six month old in a bathtub and he will do it without flinching. There is no morality involved. There is only the goal and achieving it in the most efficient and quickest way possible.

His nature is Lawful Neutral. He is absolutely, completely obedient to his masters with the belief that everything he does is for the greater good. He has no belief that he himself is good (monsters like him will never see the grand new world his masters are building) but he is content to ensure its coming. Martyr, in a better term. The only thing that shook him from his task was not questioning his own methodology or intent, it was showing how bad his masters were. That is what broke him.

You are dealing with an individual with a finely honed sense of empathy, morality, and loyalty who is willing to put that in a box and do what must be done to complete missions for a goal he utterly completely believes is for the greater good of everyone. He is willing to sacrifice himself and do all of the dirty jobs for that task.

He is resigned to being the bad man. He views himself as a martyr, has become something of a renaissance man to counter his own doubts that he is just a killer dog on a leash. He is highly intelligent and highly moral, there is no doubt. If he was without morality or enjoyed his work he would be utterly useless in his role.

Most 'alignment' systems were built so the paladin has a clear cut way to determine who to smack. He would be better off in a system without that kind of over-simplistic clutter in it. Using D&D alignments to stat out psychologically complex people is a waste of time. Go without if you want complexity.

Or 4E unaligned. That's what it is there for.

As a side note I'm morbidly entertained by the thought of all of the 'What are the alignments of Rorschach/Ozymandias/Jon/Comedian etc' that are probably going to be proliferating in the next nine months or so.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 03:45 PM
Maybe, maybe. But Faerun handles Well Intentioned Extremists fairly well, and has book which lists Villain tropes, as well as organizations, notable villains, feats, spells, PRCs, etc) Champions of Ruin.

"The Ends Justify the Means" seems to fit Operative.

The_Snark
2008-10-27, 04:44 PM
D&D is the worst alignment system for pigeonholing complex characters.


The Operatives demeanor is True Neutral. He will do anything to accomplish his goals from publicizing the cure for cancer to drowning a six month old in a bathtub and he will do it without flinching. There is no morality involved. There is only the goal and achieving it in the most efficient and quickest way possible.

His nature is Lawful Neutral. He is absolutely, completely obedient to his masters with the belief that everything he does is for the greater good. He has no belief that he himself is good (monsters like him will never see the grand new world his masters are building) but he is content to ensure its coming. Martyr, in a better term. The only thing that shook him from his task was not questioning his own methodology or intent, it was showing how bad his masters were. That is what broke him.

You are dealing with an individual with a finely honed sense of empathy, morality, and loyalty who is willing to put that in a box and do what must be done to complete missions for a goal he utterly completely believes is for the greater good of everyone. He is willing to sacrifice himself and do all of the dirty jobs for that task.

He is resigned to being the bad man. He views himself as a martyr, has become something of a renaissance man to counter his own doubts that he is just a killer dog on a leash. He is highly intelligent and highly moral, there is no doubt. If he was without morality or enjoyed his work he would be utterly useless in his role.

Most 'alignment' systems were built so the paladin has a clear cut way to determine who to smack. He would be better off in a system without that kind of over-simplistic clutter in it. Using D&D alignments to stat out psychologically complex people is a waste of time. Go without if you want complexity.

Or 4E unaligned. That's what it is there for.

As a side note I'm morbidly entertained by the thought of all of the 'What are the alignments of Rorschach/Ozymandias/Jon/Comedian etc' that are probably going to be proliferating in the next nine months or so.

Agreed on the alignment system, which is why I'm ignoring the law-chaos aspect—I've mostly been contending that he's an evil person by non-D&D definitions.

That said, I think you're romanticizing the Operative too much. It's understandable, because he was a cool villain, but he was not a martyr (although he might consider himself one). He was a deluded fanatic.

Yes, he was an intelligent, moral man... who chose to do the bidding of his superiors in the Alliance without ever questioning why or what purpose this would serve. He took it on faith that the Alliance really could make a perfect world, if they just had somebody who'd kill all these people who are in the way... and these people... and these ones, too...

... yeah. You see? Many, many people in fiction and history justify evil actions by saying it's for a greater goal. Many of them genuinely believed it. The Operative isn't different in that. He is different in acknowledging, to himself and others, that what he's doing is despicable, and that he is evil. He just believes it's necessary.

It's important to remember that he was wrong (unless you believe the Alliance really was capable of creating a working utopia). Imagine a person in the Firefly 'verse who decided that the source of most of the 'verse's problems was the people born on a single planet, and set out to exterminate everybody on that planet (with the intention of standing trial for mass murder and environmental destruction). That person has made a somewhat irrational decision about how to bring about something good, and is willing to enact extreme measures. Now, that person is more obviously crazy than the Operative, because his motive is much less rational... but the Operative actively chose never to know what his orders were accomplishing, taking it on blind faith that they were absolutely necessary steps towards utopia, and that they would eventually bring about a perfect world. That's not really a rational decision.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-27, 04:48 PM
Killing innocent children is Evil. Can we at least use that much as a premise?

Are we sure the children were innocent?

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 04:51 PM
Actually, if you go by BoED, killing children, innocent or otherwise, is evil since they are considered Non-combatants.

Now, if child commited Serious Crime, and was found to be Morally Culpable, might be handed over to The Law, but adventurer would not be allowed to kill them.

Doomsy
2008-10-27, 05:04 PM
Agreed on the alignment system, which is why I'm ignoring the law-chaos aspect—I've mostly been contending that he's an evil person by non-D&D definitions.

That said, I think you're romanticizing the Operative too much. It's understandable, because he was a cool villain, but he was not a martyr (although he might consider himself one). He was a deluded fanatic.

Yes, he was an intelligent, moral man... who chose to do the bidding of his superiors in the Alliance without ever questioning why or what purpose this would serve. He took it on faith that the Alliance really could make a perfect world, if they just had somebody who'd kill all these people who are in the way... and these people... and these ones, too...

... yeah. You see? Many, many people in fiction and history justify evil actions by saying it's for a greater goal. Many of them genuinely believed it. The Operative isn't different in that. He is different in acknowledging, to himself and others, that what he's doing is despicable, and that he is evil. He just believes it's necessary.

It's important to remember that he was wrong (unless you believe the Alliance really was capable of creating a working utopia). Imagine a person in the Firefly 'verse who decided that the source of most of the 'verse's problems was the people born on a single planet, and set out to exterminate everybody on that planet (with the intention of standing trial for mass murder and environmental destruction). That person has made a somewhat irrational decision about how to bring about something good, and is willing to enact extreme measures. Now, that person is more obviously crazy than the Operative, because his motive is much less rational... but the Operative actively chose never to know what his orders were accomplishing, taking it on blind faith that they were absolutely necessary steps towards utopia, and that they would eventually bring about a perfect world. That's not really a rational decision.

It is also important to remember how that movie ended. He was not a blind fanatic and he was also kept in the dark as to just how far his superiors had fallen. He essentially was doing evil that must be done to pave the way for a promised good. While he recognized himself as a monster he was a monster for a cause that he utterly believed was worth the price. What he believed he was doing were necessary evils. And to be fair...well. The ending. I think if he had been truly evil things would not have been so simple as that. Or he had an alignment changing event.

kc0bbq
2008-10-27, 05:10 PM
A question: what "rule" or law did River Tam break, exactly? She stole state secrets, however unintentionally. Espionage laws were broken. Really sensitive, really secret, secrets.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 05:10 PM
thats actually pretty much Machiavellian definition- intro to The Discourses- written by editor:

"But if you are willing, he seems to say, then for god and man's sake, recognize that what for the moment you are doing, is evil, and do not fall into calling it good"

The Operative is like that- he knows that what he's doing is evil, but he sees it as necessary to protect the state.

Philistine
2008-10-27, 05:16 PM
It is also important to remember how that movie ended. He was not a blind fanatic and he was also kept in the dark as to just how far his superiors had fallen. He essentially was doing evil that must be done to pave the way for a promised good. While he recognized himself as a monster he was a monster for a cause that he utterly believed was worth the price. What he believed he was doing were necessary evils. And to be fair...well. The ending. I think if he had been truly evil things would not have been so simple as that. Or he had an alignment changing event.

The Operative chose to surrender his own capacity for moral judgements to his superiors, whomever they were. At the climax of the movie, Mal forcibly opened his eyes to how far his superiors had fallen; before that, he didn't know because he didn't want to know. (With the level of authority and access he had, he certainly could have found out sooner - if he'd wanted to. He never asked the question.) That's textbook "blind fanatic."


She stole state secrets, however unintentionally. Espionage laws were broken. Really sensitive, really secret, secrets.

LOL, no. Possibly the project director who sent her into a room with the "top men" of the Alliance broke espionage laws, but River didn't. Are you guilty of stealing state secrets if someone else (who does have access to them) grabs you on the street and starts screaming them in your face? Nor were those "state secrets" - at least the ones we know about - particularly threatening to the survival of the State. To the political survival of some statesmen, yes - but Miranda at least does not appear to have been a State security issue.

Doomsy
2008-10-27, 06:04 PM
The Operative chose to surrender his own capacity for moral judgements to his superiors, whomever they were. At the climax of the movie, Mal forcibly opened his eyes to how far his superiors had fallen; before that, he didn't know because he didn't want to know. (With the level of authority and access he had, he certainly could have found out sooner - if he'd wanted to. He never asked the question.) That's textbook "blind fanatic."

Actually, it is never made clear just how far the Operatives ability to see laterally was. It is highly likely that the Operative never knew the secrets he was going to kill River to protect. People who do counter intelligence and security are often not cleared to actually know what they are protecting, since the risk of capture is high. Also, you should keep in mind that people who asked those particular questions?

They get killed by Operatives.
Compartmentalization is a pain like that sometimes.

Also, you kind of don't know how security and espionage laws work. River is essentially a walking listening device. The fact she could do it without intending to do it is not the point here. Legally, she took government files and secrets without the appropriate clearance levels. So not only did she steal the secrets, damage government property, steal government property (herself), and possibly commit treason (she is a national of the Alliance and has acted against their interests, clearly, but has not acted with a foreign government), but she did it all involuntarily.


Which makes no difference in the law whatsoever, given that these kind of things by their very nature can never reach a public courtroom. She really could claim insanity, though.

Also Miranda was clearly a state secret for a very good reason, if you think about it, for far more than political reasons.
They never reclaimed the test materials they used there.
Yeah, think about that one for a while.

hamishspence
2008-10-27, 06:08 PM
The federation seems reminicent of the Imperium, with Operatives as Inquisitors. Perhaps not so Grimdark.

it can also depend on philosophy- some go with "sacrificing people to save More people is OK" others "no sacrifices of unconsenting people, of any kind, are OK."

Brasswatchman
2008-10-27, 09:48 PM
I dunno...I can see a strong argument for Lawful Neutral for the Operative.

He does evil things, yes, but he also recognized times when good things needed to be done - for instance, the climactic stand-down order at the end of the movie.

Then there's the guy he killed at the beginning of the movie; yes, he killed him, but he didn't really want to; he just needed to, as part of his duty. He had to execute his duty, which meant he had to execute that man. He did it in the most honorable, straightforward way he could.

Yes, he broke laws, but being Lawful isn't really about following all the laws, and being Chaotic isn't about breaking them. It's following a code of discipline, a personal standard, whatever you want to call it - it's an ordered, standard, predictable way of behaving. And he definitely did that. He's definitely Lawful.

He had a directive, and he carried it out, even when it made him do things he didn't entirely want to do or things he wouldn't have done 'normally'. He subsumed his entire being, personality, and will into his job as the Operative - he was damn near a robot, really.

I'd say he's a ruthless LN, somewhat close to the edge of LE.

Mal, meanwhile, I'd say is pretty much split between CN and CG. He looks out for his team almost as much as he just looks out for himself, and the things he does usually tie in to one of those two facets.

Seconded. Really couldn't have put it any better myself.

Brasswatchman
2008-10-27, 09:50 PM
Also Miranda was clearly a state secret for a very good reason, if you think about it, for far more than political reasons.
They never reclaimed the test materials they used there.
Yeah, think about that one for a while.

You know, I was wondering where Whedon might pick things up again, if he ever gets the chance to continue the series or make another movie.... that said, really can't see Firefly working without Wash.

... uhh... someone already did a spoiler warning for this thread, right?

Mewtarthio
2008-10-27, 10:24 PM
Relax. It's a three-year-old movie, and anybody who hasn't seen it by now probably never will (except for people who never saw Firefly but are thinking of watching it, who would most likely not be reading a topic about its sequel movie). Granted, I did once get a warning for giving away the ending to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (1991)...
Link defeats Ganon in the end. Everyone lives happily ever after.

elliott20
2008-10-27, 11:28 PM
personally, I like using the belief system in Burning Wheel better. of course, this really screws with any alignment based spells so it's a balancing act.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-28, 07:29 AM
Granted, I did once get a warning for giving away the ending to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (1991)...
Link defeats Ganon in the end. Everyone lives happily ever after.

{Scrubbed}

HidaTsuzua
2008-10-28, 08:48 AM
{Scrubbed}

Tengu_temp
2008-10-28, 08:52 AM
I'm not cruel enough to reveal all the plot twists.

Dragonus45
2008-10-28, 10:34 AM
{Scrubbed}

mangosta71
2008-10-28, 11:26 AM
It looks to me like the people arguing for a LN alignment are assuming that the law is good. This is never stated in either the movie or the series, while there are certainly plenty of implications that it is not. He's following orders, but the orders are coming from people who are, by most standards, probably evil (ie, they care more about staying in power than they do about the good of the 'verse). His methods are unquestionably evil - ordering the deaths of hundreds because his target has associated with them in the past is a good example. Even if they were outlaws, casually sentencing them all to death is unequivocably evil. Are they to be condemned because they shot back? Book's not the type who would have opened fire first, so it's safe to assume that he shot the Alliance ship down in a last-ditch attempt at self-defense.

So his methods are evil, and the people he's serving are evil. He wants a perfect world, but his standards for that perfect world require the eradication of most of the population. Is his goal even good?

Roland St. Jude
2008-10-28, 11:40 AM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Alternatively, we could maybe not discuss real world religion. Please?

ashmanonar
2008-10-28, 11:54 AM
Ahh, alignment arguments. Entirely normal, and entirely irrelevant.

In the end, we can't know what alignment Mal or the Operative are, because they are complicated characters with complicated motives, and because they are in a movie. It's difficult to classify things that are not in a game context anyways.

I'd say, in broader terms, Mal is good-hearted and anti-authority, but occasionally selfish and looks out for himself/crew.

The Operative is, until the end of the movie, psychologically wedded to an ideal "utopia," which usually means that the character will subordinate all human emotions and thoughts to this ideal. The question of what he does after he becomes disillusioned is more open; in that way his morality might change.

Philistine
2008-10-28, 12:01 PM
Actually, it is never made clear just how far the Operatives ability to see laterally was. It is highly likely that the Operative never knew the secrets he was going to kill River to protect. People who do counter intelligence and security are often not cleared to actually know what they are protecting, since the risk of capture is high. Also, you should keep in mind that people who asked those particular questions?

They get killed by Operatives.
Compartmentalization is a pain like that sometimes.

I think you're confused.

The Operative as much as said he didn't know what secrets he was trying to kill River to protect. "Secrets aren't my business. Keeping them is." Remember? But that's exactly the problem. On his own authority, he's able to order the eradication of entire settlements, with the murder of everyone present. How many people involved in real-world counterintel and security have that much power, or anything like it? Right. So given that he wields that much authority, the Alliance has to give him access to whatever information he needs, or thinks he needs, in order to do his job - to do otherwise would be truly insane. That makes his blindness willful, and that willfulness is why it's inexcusable.


Also, you kind of don't know how security and espionage laws work. River is essentially a walking listening device. The fact she could do it without intending to do it is not the point here. Legally, she took government files and secrets without the appropriate clearance levels. So not only did she steal the secrets, damage government property, steal government property (herself), and possibly commit treason (she is a national of the Alliance and has acted against their interests, clearly, but has not acted with a foreign government), but she did it all involuntarily.


Which makes no difference in the law whatsoever, given that these kind of things by their very nature can never reach a public courtroom. She really could claim insanity, though.

Bull. You kind of don't know what "theft" is. River Tam had no intent to steal anything. She took no action - she was merely present in a room. She was in that room under duress - she was not given a choice to go there or not to go there, so she could not consent. And until long after the fact, she was not even aware that she had the information (and looking at the sequence of events, she might never have become aware of it if The Operative hadn't triggered her). If I steal something and hide it in the trunk of your car, without your knowledge or consent, have you then stolen it? No.

You also need to support your contention that "River is a walking listening device." How so? Or at least, how is she, in principle, any different from everyone else? Her "Reading" appears to be involuntary, like hearing or scent - senses available to the great majority of people. Would you be liable if someone else, without any warning, started speaking state secrets in your presence? Should you be killed because you were once in a room with someone who might have divulged state secrets to you? The Operative never explains how anyone knew what River Read from those "Top Men" of the Alliance, or even that she Read anything from them at all...

Yeah, think about that one for a while.

It appears that you're going through these ridiculous contortions because of your desire to "justify" an interesting villain. It makes you sound like one of those Evil Is Cool apologists. Lame. Very, very lame.


Also Miranda was clearly a state secret for a very good reason, if you think about it, for far more than political reasons.
They never reclaimed the test materials they used there.
Yeah, think about that one for a while.

That's merely your assumption. I don't recall anything in the movie stating what happened either way. It's just possible that all the investigators sent by the Alliance to determine why Miranda dropped off the net were killed; it's clear that at least some of them were. But given that the "Top Men" in the Alliance apparently know what happened at Miranda, it seems more likely that others - either from that investigation or from another - actually survived to put the pieces together and report back to the Core Worlds. So it's very possible, even likely, that said survivors either removed or destroyed the most damning evidence: the Pax. That would move it right back out of the "state security" category and back to "just politics."

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-28, 12:20 PM
I think you're confused.

The Operative as much as said he didn't know what secrets he was trying to kill River to protect. "Secrets aren't my business. Keeping them is." Remember? But that's exactly the problem. On his own authority, he's able to order the eradication of entire settlements, with the murder of everyone present. How many people involved in real-world counterintel and security have that much power, or anything like it? Right. So given that he wields that much authority, the Alliance has to give him access to whatever information he needs, or thinks he needs, in order to do his job - to do otherwise would be truly insane. That makes his blindness willful, and that willfulness is why it's inexcusable. I would have to disagree. Had the Operative showed or displayed the initiative or desire to know what he is going about keeping, he would have been eliminated well before he had gotten this far. In short, not only do they need to not give him this access, they need for him to not want it, for him to be a decent Operative. So he has been brainwashed, probably from well before the beginning of the 'operative training', and conditioned to think in this way. Now who is the victim?




Bull. You kind of don't know what "theft" is. River Tam had no intent to steal anything. She took no action - she was merely present in a room. She was in that room under duress - she was not given a choice to go there or not to go there, so she could not consent. And until long after the fact, she was not even aware that she had the information (and looking at the sequence of events, she might never have become aware of it if The Operative hadn't triggered her). If I steal something and hide it in the trunk of your car, without your knowledge or consent, have you then stolen it? No.

You also need to support your contention that "River is a walking listening device." How so? Or at least, how is she, in principle, any different from everyone else? Her "Reading" appears to be involuntary, like hearing or scent - senses available to the great majority of people. Would you be liable if someone else, without any warning, started speaking state secrets in your presence? Should you be killed because you were once in a room with someone who might have divulged state secrets to you? The Operative never explains how anyone knew what River Read from those "Top Men" of the Alliance, or even that she Read anything from them at all...

Yeah, think about that one for a while.
The problem is not that River may have gleaned state secrets, the problem is that now she is no longer under their control, and who knows what might happen now? They don't know what secrets River gleaned. They don't care. "Key Members of Parliment" know the exact details on every 'black book' op, every intel and counterintel op, every last little detail about everything that is classified material, and they were put in a room where River had access to ALL that information. It's tantamount to putting a world-class hacker into a chair in the Pentagon and give him super-user access to all files.

They don't know what it was. It could have been Miranda. It could have been any NUMBER of other operations, the revelation of which may well endanger the security of the state. Sure, River may never have realized what she held in her head if the Operative had not triggered her, however are you really willing to risk the stability of an interplanatary government body on this?

What do you think any sane government would do when they realize they had a security breach as bad as this, and that the person who had access to the information is no longer under their thumb?

However, most of this does not bear on the Operative's alignment.

It doesn't matter how good or evil the Law is, the Operative believes that it is good. He is deluded, and finally when he realizes it, his mind almost breaks from the relevation of what his precious law has been doing. It was a moral crisis that the Operative would not have had if he was truely Evil.


It appears that you're going through these ridiculous contortions because of your desire to "justify" an interesting villain. It makes you sound like one of those Evil Is Cool apologists. Lame. Very, very lame.
Please do not resort to personal attacks. The Sheriff of Modingham already had to intervene once in this thread, I'd rather not get the thread locked down, please.




That's merely your assumption. I don't recall anything in the movie stating what happened either way. It's just possible that all the investigators sent by the Alliance to determine why Miranda dropped off the net were killed; it's clear that at least some of them were. But given that the "Top Men" in the Alliance apparently know what happened at Miranda, it seems more likely that others - either from that investigation or from another - actually survived to put the pieces together and report back to the Core Worlds. So it's very possible, even likely, that said survivors either removed or destroyed the most damning evidence: the Pax. That would move it right back out of the "state security" category and back to "just politics."

When the Operative tells his men to stand down, he says "It's finished... we're finished.", to me, this means he believes that this information will cause a massive collapse of regime. State secrets are, by their very nature, political in nature, because every governmental member who has access to them are politicians. That doesn't mean it won't cause the collapse of the regime if it gets out.

Also, no one was able to get any decent reports from Mirande due to the Reavers hanging out in that part of space. No one knew what was on Miranda, except that they probably got their own chemistry guys together and figured out what that chemical compound would do to a tenth of a percent of the people, realized they had created the Reavers, and slapped a classification on the whole matter to keep from having parliment melt down.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 12:23 PM
Believing that what you are doing is Good is not exactly a new thing in D&D context.

The Victorious Blade of The People is elven organization that sees humans as, basically, Orcs with good PR. and are not slow to slaughter them.

Evil people can have moral crisis. Vader in RotJ may be one example. In novels especially, we get whole Good Intentions bit- he realizes, in ROTJ, just whats at stake, and intervenes.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-10-28, 12:30 PM
Believing that what you are doing is Good is not exactly a new thing in D&D context.

The Victorious Blade of The People is elven organization that sees humans as, basically, Orcs with good PR. and are not slow to slaughter them.

Evil people can have moral crisis. Vader in RotJ may be one example. In novels especially, we get whole Good Intentions bit- he realizes, in ROTJ, just whats at stake, and intervenes.

The Vader comparison is not valid. Vader knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. He knew full well the ramifications of what he was doing, and did it anyways, out of vengence. He wanted revenge on the Jedi Council for how they treated him, his mother, and the death of Padame and his 'child'.

Vader was 'turned' by Luke, because he cared more about Luke than about the Emperor. Basically, the Emperor said "Choose one, me or the kid", and vader chose the kid. It was still a basically selfish act, although it ended up getting himself killed.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 12:45 PM
He did have what he thought of as Good ends "we can overthrow him. Make things the way we want them to be" But "the road to doom is paved with good intentions"

Tengu_temp
2008-10-28, 12:58 PM
If you ask me, the numbers of people who think that the Operative is LN proves only one thing - how good a character he is. All well-written villains who don't carry a card will have people arguing they're not really evil, no exceptions.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 01:00 PM
Thrawn, no doubt. He's more evil in the first three books than Outbound Flight though, and his Good Intentions are hinted at in Specter/Vision, before appearing in Outbound Flight.

Doomsy
2008-10-28, 01:03 PM
I think you're confused.

The Operative as much as said he didn't know what secrets he was trying to kill River to protect. "Secrets aren't my business. Keeping them is." Remember? But that's exactly the problem. On his own authority, he's able to order the eradication of entire settlements, with the murder of everyone present. How many people involved in real-world counterintel and security have that much power, or anything like it? Right. So given that he wields that much authority, the Alliance has to give him access to whatever information he needs, or thinks he needs, in order to do his job - to do otherwise would be truly insane. That makes his blindness willful, and that willfulness is why it's inexcusable.





That's merely your assumption. I don't recall anything in the movie stating what happened either way. It's just possible that all the investigators sent by the Alliance to determine why Miranda dropped off the net were killed; it's clear that at least some of them were. But given that the "Top Men" in the Alliance apparently know what happened at Miranda, it seems more likely that others - either from that investigation or from another - actually survived to put the pieces together and report back to the Core Worlds. So it's very possible, even likely, that said survivors either removed or destroyed the most damning evidence: the Pax. That would move it right back out of the "state security" category and back to "just politics."

Wrong again. You see. You're forgetting some very important things. One. The video they found? That is what happens to most people who get near Miranda. This is in addition to the fact that Miranda is surrounded by a fleet of Reavers, the berserker psychopaths who nearly
Secondly. The Pax is still out there as a live agent. You might not have watched the show, but there is one episode which clearly shows that the Reavers are capable of altering others into what they are. The said episode contrives to say it is from having their mind snapped by witnessing the Reavers horror.
More likely, given that the Reavers appear to be able to work together semi-functionally, the Pax is part of how they recognize each other as lower priority targets than the uninfected. It is highly likely that prolonged exposure to the Reavers themselves causes that reaction, as their biological and mental systems appear to be permanently altered. More importantly they did not turn on the Apathetic of Miranda, who had apparently lost all will to do anything. The corpses were intact. That suggests that those infected or altered by the Pax do not act aggressively towards each other.

The only reason the Serenity crew got through the blockade was by going beyond the pale. As for them being infected by the Pax?

Put it this way: They never gave a time frame for how long it took you to go utterly berserk or completely apathetic. Given the small percentage of people that experience the inverse Reaver reaction I'm assuming it took a while for both reaver numbers to build and their violent behavior to increase, along with the Apathetic slowly getting more so. Then all hell broke lose as the government had to deal with a system that was basically completely collapsing in either berserker rage or sheer carelessness. It is possible Miranda itself is still contaminated and live as a source for the Pax.

If you really want to screw with AICs, maybe the reason River 'got better' after experiencing Miranda was due to being exposed to Pax, not some mental pressure valve relieving itself.

The government also would have had a very valid reason to NOT send military gear and ships to Miranda to reclaim the Pax, for the same reason they would not attempt a military bombardment/reclamation. One, the noise across civilian channels would attract attention. Secondly, under no circumstances do you want Reavers getting hold of military technology. Look at what they've done with crude improvised gear derived from civilian technology. If the Pax is infectious you want to limit contact. The Reavers do that themselves by killing all they come across or converting them. The only real option to deal with Reavers is to hit them with overwhelming force and hit them hard. Organizing a large enough force to wipe out the Reapers and reclaim their lab planet would, given the nature of the Reavers and the dangers of the Pax, take an extremely large force.

Miranda did not 'drop off the net'. It was removed. It took some checking in unexpected or overlooked venues to reveal its existence. It was listed as a 'black rock' rather than a colony to discourage people from visiting, and if they did anyway - the Reavers killed them. It would not be listed as a 'black rock' unless someone put that data in there. You can guess who. The government probably knew what had happened and was still trying to figure out what to do about it. I'm not making moral judgments here just listing out the most probable chain of events and actions. This was not 'just politics', this was the government both covering up a very dangerous secret and covering its ass. Reavers are NEVER 'just politics', unless you live in some deranged alternate universe where 'murderous berserker freaks infected with a possibly contagious agent' are tame enough that you just casually put it up there as an issue alongside no smoking bans and taxes.


Thirdly, you pointed out yourself that the Operative does not care about secrets, he cares about protecting them. If you are going to turn this into a knife fight please do me the favor of not stabbing yourself right off the bat.

Philistine
2008-10-28, 01:36 PM
I would have to disagree. Had the Operative showed or displayed the initiative or desire to know what he is going about keeping, he would have been eliminated well before he had gotten this far. In short, not only do they need to not give him this access, they need for him to not want it, for him to be a decent Operative. So he has been brainwashed, probably from well before the beginning of the 'operative training', and conditioned to think in this way. Now who is the victim?

If The Operative is just a brainwashed zombie, then he is unable to make moral choices. If he is not a moral agent, he cannot have an alignment - in which case, this entire discussion is moot. Where's the fun in that?

Again, I point out that The Operative, on his own authority, ordered the deaths of dozens of people onscreen, and it is implied that there were hundreds or thousands more offscreen. There are heads of state who don't have the power to do what The Operative did individually; not without going through some kind of council or deliberative body, and not without having to justify the action both before and after the fact - there is no way that The Operative has that kind of authority but does not have access to any information he needs, or thinks he needs, or thinks he might need. Furthermore, who puts that kind of power in the hands of a zombie?


The problem is not that River may have gleaned state secrets, the problem is that now she is no longer under their control, and who knows what might happen now? They don't know what secrets River gleaned. They don't care. "Key Members of Parliment" know the exact details on every 'black book' op, every intel and counterintel op, every last little detail about everything that is classified material, and they were put in a room where River had access to ALL that information. It's tantamount to putting a world-class hacker into a chair in the Pentagon and give him super-user access to all files.

Actually, it's tantamount to tying some down in a chair so that he can't look away, then holding his eyelids apart so that he can't close them, Alex DeLarge style, and streaming random images across a screen in front of him which might (or might not) actually contain information that might (or might not) jeapordize the security of the state, then trying to kill her because she might (or might not) actually have caught and retained some (or any) part of it.


They don't know what it was. It could have been Miranda. It could have been any NUMBER of other operations, the revelation of which may well endanger the security of the state. Sure, River may never have realized what she held in her head if the Operative had not triggered her, however are you really willing to risk the stability of an interplanatary government body on this?

Except that The Operative, at the end of the movie, seems to think that the Miranda revelation was all the damage River could do.


What do you think any sane government would do when they realize they had a security breach as bad as this, and that the person who had access to the information is no longer under their thumb?

You're the one arguing that the Alliance is putting Godlike power in the hands of a brainwashed zombie. Now, what was that about a "sane government"?


However, most of this does not bear on the Operative's alignment.

It doesn't matter how good or evil the Law is, the Operative believes that it is good. He is deluded, and finally when he realizes it, his mind almost breaks from the relevation of what his precious law has been doing. It was a moral crisis that the Operative would not have had if he was truely Evil.

The Operative's actions throughout the film are clearly evil. Monstrously evil. This is admitted and accepted by everyone in the film, including The Operative himself. It doesn't matter what end he was pursuing, the means by which he chose to pursue it put him squarely and unequivocally in the Evil camp.


Please do not resort to personal attacks. The Sheriff of Modingham already had to intervene once in this thread, I'd rather not get the thread locked down, please.

That wasn't a personal attack. It was an observation, stating that a certain conclusion could be drawn by a person reading the arguments posted. I stand by that observation, and furthermore I extend it to you as well. It appears that you are looking for excuses in order to justify a cool villain, a behavior commonly seen among persons who believe that Evil Is Cool.


When the Operative tells his men to stand down, he says "It's finished... we're finished.", to me, this means he believes that this information will cause a massive collapse of regime. State secrets are, by their very nature, political in nature, because every governmental member who has access to them are politicians. That doesn't mean it won't cause the collapse of the regime if it gets out.

That's directly contradicted by the end of the movie. The Operative tells Mal that he sent a signal back to the Alliance that "the damage is done," but that other Alliance elements - other Operatives, more Blue Hands, or whatever - might still be coming after the crew of Serenity. So clearly it didn't cause a total collapse of the government, because the same people are still in position to pursue the same agendas - even past the point where it has become a mere personal vendetta.


Also, no one was able to get any decent reports from Mirande due to the Reavers hanging out in that part of space. No one knew what was on Miranda, except that they probably got their own chemistry guys together and figured out what that chemical compound would do to a tenth of a percent of the people, realized they had created the Reavers, and slapped a classification on the whole matter to keep from having parliment melt down.

All of which is supposition - none of that is ever stated on-screen. Rank-and-file citizens in the Alliance don't know about Miranda, that's stated. What the high muckety-mucks of the Alliance know or don't know isn't actually stated, only implied. And if the Alliance could simply "get their chemistry guys together" and figure out the harmful effects of the Pax drug, then why didn't they do that before they used an entire planet's worth of people as guinea pigs? (Remember, it only turned a handful of people into Reavers - 99%+ of the test subjects simply lay down and died.) So clearly, the answer is that they couldn't.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 01:50 PM
I don't know about "brainwashed zombie" but a person can be turned into a non-moral agent:

a set of spells applied together can grant them the Living Zombie template, which is Always Neutral and has Int 1 and Cha 1. Unless was originally an animal, they retain their original type. And are not undead.

So I'm inclined to say, fanatical as he is, Operative is under no form of compulsion, but is a rational moral agent.

Doug Lampert
2008-10-28, 02:17 PM
She stole state secrets, however unintentionally. Espionage laws were broken. Really sensitive, really secret, secrets.


LOL, no. Possibly the project director who sent her into a room with the "top men" of the Alliance broke espionage laws, but River didn't. Are you guilty of stealing state secrets if someone else (who does have access to them) grabs you on the street and starts screaming them in your face?

In our real world it depends on the secret. Seriously.

Hypothetically in the USA you could derive how to build an A-bomb from purely unclassified material, without ever holding a security clearance or using government documents, and if you do that then in theory you can be prosecuted for not adequately safeguarding that information and letting someone without an appropriate clearance (AKA you yourself) get access to it. (Note that the rules for clasified nuke information are different from normal security rules, normal laws wouldn't allow this.)

Those laws go back decades to the '40s and '50s, they've held up in court (although never AFAIK on a case as silly as prosecuting someone for telling himself, a sane judge would laugh that one out of court I suspect, and if he didn't the jury would).

Problem is that the operative is in the position to act as judge, jury, and executioner. If he's NOT evil it's his JOB to be the one to laugh this one out of court, there is no one else. Instead he kills innocents to try to catch an innocent who MIGHT, someday, tell someone something they shouldn't know.

Read the alignment definitions, callous disregard for the lives of innocents is EVIL. The Operative shows this in spades, the argument for Neutral DEPENDS on the claim that he doesn't really care about those people but only about the job, but caring about the job to the exclusion of caring about actual people is classic Evil. The only time not caring gets a pass if for creatures that aren't capable of moral judgements (animals and vermin and mindless constructs and the like), otherwise indiference to others is evil. Baring cackling you can't get much clearer than he is.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 02:25 PM
I got impression he was not entirely indifferent, but Willing to sacrifice them anyway.

mangosta71
2008-10-28, 02:54 PM
He was dispassionate about it. He didn't particularly enjoy it, but he didn't regret it either.

hamishspence
2008-10-28, 03:30 PM
I've seen more than a few fictional Operative-like characters who are somewhat haunted by their acts, even if they believe act was "The Right Thing"

Adlan
2008-10-28, 05:27 PM
I've seen more than a few fictional Operative-like characters who are somewhat haunted by their acts, even if they believe act was "The Right Thing"

I think the Operative would of been fine with his actions. Indeed, he was fine. Resigned to the fact he was a 'monster' and would not exist in the world he was creating, but I think he slept easy at night. He was a man at peace with himself.

So Long as he had the justification of the 'Better world', he was creating, he was fine.

When Mal removed that Justification by graphically illustrating what the Alliance did, he lost his self justification for his behaviour. He was no longer a monster working for the Utopia, but a Monster for the Dystopia.

He Began to question the Alliance and it's goals he was no longer 'their man'.

tbarrie
2008-10-28, 06:41 PM
He is the quintessential example of Lawful Neutral. Good and evil do not concern him.

That's how you know he's evil.